The present invention relates to decoys for use in hunting, and more specifically, it relates to water fowl decoys.
For many years, water fowl hunters have used decoys to lure water fowl to a pond or other body of water. Great efforts have been exerted to make the decoys closely simulate the appearance and size of actual birds. As a result, there are available today decoys for almost any water fowl which look almost identical to the real water fowl.
While such decoys have a life like appearance, it is also desirable to make the decoy move in the water such that it simulates the swimming motion of a duck. Many attempts have also been made to so motivate a decoy. It is believed, however, that the resulting decoys either are designed such that they will exhibit fixed or regular swimming motion, unlike the actual motion of a duck. Alternatively, the decoys appear to be so complex that the cost of manufacturing the respective decoy would make it more expensive than the average hunter would care to spend for the added realism.
Among patents which disclose decoys which appear, from their disclosures, to exhibit motion in a somewhat fixed or predetermined direction is U.S. Pat. No. 4,322,908 to McCroy. McCroy discloses an animated water fowl decoy with self-contained power and control systems. The decoy includes a torque converter capstan which, when rotating, pulls itself along a tether string, causing the decoy to traverse the tether string. The tether string is secured at each end such that it provides a stationary track upon the water along which the decoy moves to and fro. Hence, the decoy disclosed in McCroy appears to be designed to move back and forth along a tether string, a movement which lacks the random directional changes characteristic of most actual water fowl.
An example of a decoy which, while being able to exhibit random directional motion, also appears to be fairly complex and expensive to manufacture is the decoy disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,689,927 to Boston. This patent discloses a water fowl decoy which Boston states contains a radio receiver adapted to receive signals from a remote radio transmitter. The receiver connects to an amplifier, one or more servos and other components within the decoy. A rudder operable by a servo steers the decoy. An electric motor drives a propeller to motivate the decoy. It is believed that the inclusion of such electronics and mechanical linkages would greatly increase the cost of manufacturing this decoy to the extent that for the average hunter, the decoy would be cost prohibitive.
Another example of a disclosure of a decoy that appears to be somewhat complex is U.S. Pat. No. 2,835,064 to Webb. This patent appears to disclose a decoy which is adapted to cause the head of the decoy to swing back and forth, to cause a duck sound to be emitted at intervals, and to cause the duck to alter its course intermittently in opposite directions owing to the swinging of a rudder.
Other attempts at motorized water fowl decoys include those disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,460,128 to Greenleaf; 2,799,960 to Riley; 2,814,146 to Propp; 3,000,128 to McAda; and 4,056,890 to Dembski.
While the decoys disclosed in the above-referenced patents are believed to be useful for many purposes, they appear to lack the simplicity necessary to minimize the cost of production, while at the same time including features which will cause the resulting decoy to exhibit random directional behavior similar to that of most water fowl. Accordingly, to provide an improved water fowl decoy, it is desirable to provide a decoy which is both very simple in construction and which is capable of exhibiting random directional movement in the water.